The transcripts for my appeal were supposed to be done last week, but they were not. Slow court reporters, I guess. At this point, I'd probably rather skip whatever transcripts are not available, but it is not my choice. Maybe they will be done next month at this time.
The whole court system of transcripts is archaic. It would be a lot simpler and quicker and easier and quicker for everyone involved to just use voice recordings. Not much of the transcripts is really needed, and we could just transcribe those parts. They just don't want to make it easy for people to appeal rulings.
2 comments:
The Maricopa County, Arizona, trial courts are using a voice recording system. It is not superior. Half the time, you cannot hear all that is said, and usually, the part you can't hear is exactly the part you need. When you get the voice recording transcribed, it often looks something like this:
Mr. Barnes (attorney): When you (inaudible) last (inaudible), what (inaudible)?
Ms. Smith (wife/mom): (inaudible) to the store and (inaudible)
Mr. ApplePie (other attorney): Objection, (inaudible)
Of course, some recordings are better than others (and some court reporters are more professional and/or faster at producing transcripts than others), but at least a court reporter can tell you when he/she can't hear, and can ask you to repeat what was said so he/she can record it accurately, so when you get the record, it is complete.
It sounds as if the court needs some better equipment. Good quality microphones and recorders are dirt cheap. You could almost do it all with a $30 device. With $300 in equipment, you would never miss any sounds.
Post a Comment